Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:04:31 +0200 | | From | Jarek Poplawski <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: adding memory barrier to the poll and receive callbacks |
| |
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:36:30AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > I think Oleg already said this, but you can use directly poll_wait() > > > without adding another abstraction, and the compiler will drop the double > > > check for you: > > > > I think Oleg told about cosmetics and let Jiri to choose. I'd only > > add it's not mainly about optimization, but easy showing the main > > difference, of course depending on taste. > > We already have a universally used function to do that, and that's > poll_wait(). > That code (adding an extra __poll_wait()) was entirely about > optimizations (otherwise why not use the existing poll_wait()?), so if > the optimization does not actually take place, IMO it's better to not add > an extra API.
OK, you're right, it is about optimization! But IMHO mainly about reading optimization... I simply guess me and probably Jiri too, after reading Oleg's variant thought about compiler, instead of the real difference.
Btw., maybe I miss something but I guess Oleg proposed something in between: inlining __poll_wait(), which would save us 'extra API' and compiler doubts. (But I still prefer Jiri's choice. ;-)
Jarek P.
|  |